Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople. If you have read of the fall of Constantinople you might attribute the cunning of the Islamic Generals and perhaps to the failings of the Eastern Emperors who allowed Islamic troops within their own borders to cut off their flanks (i.e. supply lines). Constantinople was simply overwhelmed but the numbers of Islamic forces even with their superior training and technology.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople.

I'm sure you're not saying that it had no effect because of 200 years?

It certainly complicated the relationship between the East and the West. The population's rejection of the Union may have been based as much on lingering effects of the Latin sack as on theological reasons. Wasn't there a Byzantine duke who said "better the Ottoman turban than the Latin mitre"?

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople. If you have read of the fall of Constantinople you might attribute the cunning of the Islamic Generals and perhaps to the failings of the Eastern Emperors who allowed Islamic troops within their own borders to cut off their flanks (i.e. supply lines). Constantinople was simply overwhelmed but the numbers of Islamic forces even with their superior training and technology.

The Fall of Constantinople left the city permanently crippled. In its wake the various Italian city-states gained trade concessions and outright possession of large chunks of the city which they used to insure Constantinople could not threaten their own growing trade interests by keeping Constantinople hamstrung--up until the time the Turk took everything.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I think another factor re the fall of Constantinople is the impact of the bubonic plague. I would guess that although the ravages were from China to England, there was less sovereign living space for the Byzantines as compared to the Western Europeans and Ottomans. The Byzantines could not recover as the others could (just a guess).

Indeed. Perhaps the sack of Constantinople by the "noble" Crusaders had some adverse affect on the ability of the Byzantine Empire to resist Muslim domination?

We're talking over 200 years before the fall of Constantinople. If you have read of the fall of Constantinople you might attribute the cunning of the Islamic Generals and perhaps to the failings of the Eastern Emperors who allowed Islamic troops within their own borders to cut off their flanks (i.e. supply lines). Constantinople was simply overwhelmed but the numbers of Islamic forces even with their superior training and technology.

The Fall of Constantinople left the city permanently crippled. In its wake the various Italian city-states gained trade concessions and outright possession of large chunks of the city which they used to insure Constantinople could not threaten their own growing trade interests by keeping Constantinople hamstrung--up until the time the Turk took everything.

Have you studied this? Professor Madden wouldn't agree with you and he is a specialist on this subject. You are conflating trade interests which took a while to develop and the defense of Eastern Rome. There were major problems with the Empire going all the way back to Diocletian. The chief 'hamstringing' was the spliting of the Empire and that eventually leading to not only a religious schism but also a cultural divide which effectively allowed the Islamic forces to attack half of the Empire at a time while the West was being undermined by Barbarians to it's west and northern borders and Muslims to their south. The real reason Islam never took the West was that they couldn't 'extend' their empire far enough to finish the West as it did with the Eastern Empire.

Yes, the Sack of Constantinople was horrible but it wasn't a deathblow to the Eastern Empire. It wasn't even a large loss of life. You are allowing your disliking and disgust of the event, which I share mind you, to over exaggerate it's effects on the Eastern Empire.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Yes, the Sack of Constantinople was horrible but it wasn't a deathblow to the Eastern Empire. It wasn't even a large loss of life. You are allowing your disliking and disgust of the event, which I share mind you, to over exaggerate it's effects on the Eastern Empire.

"Probably the most telling event which displayed the decline of the crusader ideal was the capture and pillage of the Christian bastion of Constantinople by the members of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The subsequent dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire weakened Christendom in the Near East…"http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html

Steven Runciman, whom I have read, stated that the sack of Constantinople is “unparalleled in history”:“For nine centuries, the great city had been the capital of Christian civilisation. It was filled with works of art that had survived from ancient Greece and with the masterpieces of its own exquisite craftsmen. The Venetians wherever they could seized treasures and carried them off. But the Frenchmen and Flemings were filled with a lust for destruction: they rushed in a howling mob down the streets and through the houses, snatching up everything that glittered and destroying whatever they could not carry, pausing only to murder or to rape, or to break open the wine-cellars. Neither monasteries nor churches nor libraries were spared. In St Sophia itself drunken soldiers could be seen tearing down the silken hangings and pulling the silver iconostasis to pieces, while sacred books and icons were trampled under foot. While they drank from the altar-vessels a prostitute sang a ribald French song on the Patriarch’s throne. Nuns were ravished in their convents. Palaces and hovels alike were wrecked. Wounded women and children lay dying in the streets. For three days the ghastly scenes continued until the huge and beautiful city was a shambles. Even after order was restored, citizens were tortured to make them reveal treasures they had hidden.”The Fall of Constantinople, 1453

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

Yes, the Sack of Constantinople was horrible but it wasn't a deathblow to the Eastern Empire. It wasn't even a large loss of life. You are allowing your disliking and disgust of the event, which I share mind you, to over exaggerate it's effects on the Eastern Empire.

"Probably the most telling event which displayed the decline of the crusader ideal was the capture and pillage of the Christian bastion of Constantinople by the members of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The subsequent dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire weakened Christendom in the Near East…"http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html

Steven Runciman, whom I have read, stated that the sack of Constantinople is “unparalleled in history”:“For nine centuries, the great city had been the capital of Christian civilisation. It was filled with works of art that had survived from ancient Greece and with the masterpieces of its own exquisite craftsmen. The Venetians wherever they could seized treasures and carried them off. But the Frenchmen and Flemings were filled with a lust for destruction: they rushed in a howling mob down the streets and through the houses, snatching up everything that glittered and destroying whatever they could not carry, pausing only to murder or to rape, or to break open the wine-cellars. Neither monasteries nor churches nor libraries were spared. In St Sophia itself drunken soldiers could be seen tearing down the silken hangings and pulling the silver iconostasis to pieces, while sacred books and icons were trampled under foot. While they drank from the altar-vessels a prostitute sang a ribald French song on the Patriarch’s throne. Nuns were ravished in their convents. Palaces and hovels alike were wrecked. Wounded women and children lay dying in the streets. For three days the ghastly scenes continued until the huge and beautiful city was a shambles. Even after order was restored, citizens were tortured to make them reveal treasures they had hidden.”The Fall of Constantinople, 1453

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?

« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:59:44 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

Quote

With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?

What about it?

Btw, care to respond to Runciman's idea?

« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 03:32:54 PM by katherineofdixie »

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Quote

Quote

With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?

What about it?

Btw, care to respond to Runciman's idea?

I honestly think Runciman is being a bit to Romantic... which is why I brought up the Nika Revolt...

On January 13, 532 AD a tense and angry populace arrived at the Hippodrome for the races. The Hippodrome was next to the palace complex and thus Justinian could watch from the safety of his box in the palace and preside over the races. From the start the crowd had been hurling insults at Justinian. By the end of the day, at race 22, the partisan chants had changed from "Blue" or "Green" to a unified Nίκα ("Nika", meaning "Win!" or "Conquer!"), and the crowds broke out and began to assault the palace. For the next five days the palace was under virtual siege. The fires that started during the tumult resulted in the destruction of much of the city, including the city's foremost church, the Church of the Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia (which Justinian would later rebuild).

Constantinople was a wonderful testament to the advances of Roman technology in it's day but we have to recognize that it was not heaven on earth as much as some would like to paint it in our time. Even it's own citizens raised it's foremost church, the Church of Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia to the ground by fire. I don't see Orthodox wringing their hands over that. An yet it happened.

Do you see Westerners blaming the Easterners for the fall of Rome because it was done at the behest of the Eastern Emperor Zeno, whom encouraged Theodoric the Great to leave his lands in 488 AD and conquer all of Italy and rule it in his name?

Evils have been done in the West and the East. We're just going to have to recognize that and learn from it. I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.

« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 03:52:38 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Quote

Quote

With regard to destruction of Constantinople... what about the Nika Revolt?

What about it?

Btw, care to respond to Runciman's idea?

I honestly think Runciman is being a bit to Romantic... which is why I brought up the Nika Revolt...

On January 13, 532 AD a tense and angry populace arrived at the Hippodrome for the races. The Hippodrome was next to the palace complex and thus Justinian could watch from the safety of his box in the palace and preside over the races. From the start the crowd had been hurling insults at Justinian. By the end of the day, at race 22, the partisan chants had changed from "Blue" or "Green" to a unified Nίκα ("Nika", meaning "Win!" or "Conquer!"), and the crowds broke out and began to assault the palace. For the next five days the palace was under virtual siege. The fires that started during the tumult resulted in the destruction of much of the city, including the city's foremost church, the Church of the Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia (which Justinian would later rebuild).

Constantinople was a wonderful testament to the advances of Roman technology in it's day but we have to recognize that it was not heaven on earth as much as some would like to paint it in our time. Even it's own citizens raised it's foremost church, the Church of Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia to the ground by fire. I don't see Orthodox wringing their hands over that. An yet it happened.

Do you see Westerners blaming the Easterners for the fall of Rome because it was done at the behest of the Eastern Emperor Zeno, whom encouraged Theodoric the Great to leave his lands in 488 AD and conquer all of Italy and rule it in his name?

Evils have been done in the West and the East. We're just going to have to recognize that and learn from it. I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.

Very well stated.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Not enough to not take advantage and pick the carcass.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.

I absolutely agree with you, and would only suggest that perhaps you also could take heed of your wise advice.

Honestly, it's one of the humbling aspects of being a Catholic. Everyone just assumes Rome is flat evil. It's virtually impossible to wax triumphant.

Quote

And just fyi, if it's at all germane to our discussion, I learned about and studied the Sack of Constantinople way way before I became Orthodox.

So you knew that the only time Hagia Sophia was completely raised to the ground in Constantinople it was done by it's own citizens?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I am quite familiar with the details of the sack of Constantinople but you must recognize that such acts doesn't 'hamstring' an Empire the size of Eastern Rome.

Much of this is an appeal to an emotional reaction. Effective, to be sure but such act aren't going to cripple an Empire.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I did not say "hamstrung" or "cripple". I did say, "adversely affect" the Byzantine Empire's ability to respond to the Muslim threat. This is not, apparently, from my reading at least, a novel idea but one that other historians have put forth.

Why do I get the idea that, while accusing me of allowing my disgust and anger over this terrible event to warp my opinions, you are denigrating the effect of the Sack of Constantinople? And why would you do so?

And while we're on the subject, why would I let my "emotions" overpower my reason over an event that happened centuries ago?

I've seen Orthodox rally around this event time and time again to excite their dislike of the West. It's not an event which incriminates all of the West as it was chiefly the designs of Venice and horrified the Pope and Western Bishops.

Not enough to not take advantage and pick the carcass.

Well I think when a Catholic Antagonist shows up... it's a little difficult to resist.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I don't think selective cherry picking events to highlight the evils of one while ignoring the evils down by another is particularly worthwhile.

I absolutely agree with you, and would only suggest that perhaps you also could take heed of your wise advice.

Honestly, it's one of the humbling aspects of being a Catholic. Everyone just assumes Rome is flat evil. It's virtually impossible to wax triumphant.

your martyr complex is showing: many have more than assumptions to go on to judge the Vatican's motives. Its hiearchy in Latin America think the protestant missionaries quite evil.

Quote

Quote

And just fyi, if it's at all germane to our discussion, I learned about and studied the Sack of Constantinople way way before I became Orthodox.

So you knew that the only time Hagia Sophia was completely raised to the ground in Constantinople it was done by it's own citizens?

Justinian took care of them, others repented and rebuilt it. Did they put prostetutes on the cathedra? I don't recall that part.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

your martyr complex is showing: many have more than assumptions to go on to judge the Vatican's motives. Its hiearchy in Latin America think the protestant missionaries quite evil.

I've seen enough Orthodox react to Protestant Missionaries presume the exact same thing... are they 'evil' too?

Quote

Justinian took care of them, others repented and rebuilt it. Did they put prostetutes on the cathedra? I don't recall that part.

I wouldn't put it passed them. The fact that the entire church was raised to the ground makes that challenging though doesn't it?

I'm not hear to defend the acts of those barbarians but I am hear to point out that such acts are not the failings of the West alone.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

But seriously though, after Jubilee and Our Holy Father's apologies for the evils done by the hands of the Roman Church I fail to see where 'any' Catholic can honestly wax triumphant. Of course, the rest of the World only used his apology as a means to confirm the errors of the See of Rome but what are you going to do? Move on.

« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 05:51:44 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

your martyr complex is showing: many have more than assumptions to go on to judge the Vatican's motives. Its hiearchy in Latin America think the protestant missionaries quite evil.

I've seen enough Orthodox react to Protestant Missionaries presume the exact same thing... are they 'evil' too?

We're not the ones whinning that everyone is against us.

Quote

Quote

Justinian took care of them, others repented and rebuilt it. Did they put prostetutes on the cathedra? I don't recall that part.

I wouldn't put it passed them. The fact that the entire church was raised to the ground makes that challenging though doesn't it?

Not really. I don't recall something saying that they destroyed the Church, but that it was destroyed during their seige and burning of the Great Palace. Looking at the map:It need not resemble the wanton, intentional, destruction of the Crusaders.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Not really. I don't recall something saying that they destroyed the Church, but that it was destroyed during their seige and burning of the Great Palace. Looking at the map:It need not resemble the wanton, intentional, destruction of the Crusaders.

Perhaps you should read the wanton, intentional, destruction of the City during their revolt? It seems more important to you that the Crusaders are held to be uniquely vile and perhaps they were. I don't honestly know, because I wasn't there. I also can't completely trust the records of the event because they would and could have been written with a bias over exaggerating that actual events.

It is enough for me to know that the Western Church has reviewed the events and asked for pardon and forgiveness. If can't do that or if Orthodoxy can't do that... that honestly isn't my problem. Again I wasn't there. I didn't siege Constantinople. I don't feel any particular incrimination for those whom did. That the Western Church, through Our Holy Father, does and has asked for pardon seems to be a just thing to do but I personally don't feel blame for the sins of individuals 800 years ago. For you and others whom think you are more just because your cling to this event as some kind of badge of cultural self-righteousness is interesting. I don't see the connection to myself in either case. As I've said, I wasn't there. What I find interesting is, neither were you. Until we can forgive others we will be bound to our own sins. For the Orthodox to cling to this moment and fail to see their own errors is a kind of blindness I don't want to inherit if I enter into Orthodoxy.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

^ I have always liked to point out that I have never sacked Constantinople nor have I ever massacred EO Christians.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

It is enough for me to know that the Western Church has reviewed the events and asked for pardon and forgiveness. If can't do that or if Orthodoxy can't do that... that honestly isn't my problem.

Again I wasn't there. I didn't siege Constantinople. I don't feel any particular incrimination for those whom did. That the Western Church, through Our Holy Father, does and has asked for pardon seems to be a just thing to do but I personally don't feel blame for the sins of individuals 800 years ago. For you and others whom think you are more just because your cling to this event as some kind of badge of cultural self-righteousness is interesting. I don't see the connection to myself in either case. As I've said, I wasn't there. What I find interesting is, neither were you. Until we can forgive others we will be bound to our own sins. For the Orthodox to cling to this moment and fail to see their own errors is a kind of blindness I don't want to inherit if I enter into Orthodoxy.

I agree.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Not really. I don't recall something saying that they destroyed the Church, but that it was destroyed during their seige and burning of the Great Palace. Looking at the map:It need not resemble the wanton, intentional, destruction of the Crusaders.

Perhaps you should read the wanton, intentional, destruction of the City during their revolt? It seems more important to you that the Crusaders are held to be uniquely vile and perhaps they were. I don't honestly know, because I wasn't there. I also can't completely trust the records of the event because they would and could have been written with a bias over exaggerating that actual events.

It is enough for me to know that the Western Church has reviewed the events and asked for pardon and forgiveness. If can't do that or if Orthodoxy can't do that... that honestly isn't my problem. Again I wasn't there. I didn't siege Constantinople. I don't feel any particular incrimination for those whom did. That the Western Church, through Our Holy Father, does and has asked for pardon seems to be a just thing to do but I personally don't feel blame for the sins of individuals 800 years ago. For you and others whom think you are more just because your cling to this event as some kind of badge of cultural self-righteousness is interesting. I don't see the connection to myself in either case. As I've said, I wasn't there. What I find interesting is, neither were you. Until we can forgive others we will be bound to our own sins. For the Orthodox to cling to this moment and fail to see their own errors is a kind of blindness I don't want to inherit if I enter into Orthodoxy.

The OP asked about the cause of the FAll of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks. A chief reason was the city's saking by the Crusaders, from which the Empire never fully recovered.

Someone then defended the Crusaders and brought up the Nike revolt, which, (having happened before Muhammad was born, and causing no lasting damage and certainly no contributing to the Fall of the City to the Muslims), has no relevance to the OP.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The OP asked about the cause of the FAll of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks. A chief reason was the city's saking by the Crusaders, from which the Empire never fully recovered.

Someone then defended the Crusaders and brought up the Nike revolt, which, (having happened before Muhammad was born, and causing no lasting damage and certainly no contributing to the Fall of the City to the Muslims), has no relevance to the OP.

Grace and Peace,

My response was with regard to Runicman's Romantic depiction Constantinople as 700 years of idealize civilization only broken by the sacking there of by the Crusaders. This is clearly not true as multiple times the city was brought to it's knees by Plagues, the Nika Revolt (where the first Hagia Sophia was raised to the ground by fire), and dobious things that would call Runciman's ideal into question. Anyone with historical knowledge of the Eastern Empire would be familiar with it's all too 'human' character. At times I am convinced that there are Orthodox who have a very naive view of the Eastern World and that the West is uniquely vile which truly isn't the case.

The point isn't "why orthodoxy was unable to resist Islam", they clearly resisted Islam. The point we are all ignoring is that with foreign troops the Empire East or West wasn't able to maintian it's own borders. Thus the eventual sacking of Rome by Gothic Generals of it's own Western Armies. The Eastern Empire suffered the same fate from Gothic Generals in their own Balkans. The Empire was suffering repeated declines for hundreds of years before the Sack of Constantinople. Unless one had a vested interested in passing the blame of their own defeat on the West, I don't honestly see how one could do it with a straight face. Constantinople was built at the crossroads of the world, it was only a matter of time before either the Western Worldly Powers or Persia or Middle-Eastern Powers took the city down. The Eastern Empire could not have continued without major reforms which it simply didn't do. I can appreciate one piety toward one's faith to blind one to these facts but no objective historian of the period would agree.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Out of Divine favour. How could the Byzantine empire not take 1258 and the defeat of Bajazet followed by the crumbling of tamerlane's fake empire to rebuild? Not logical.

Take a look at the world at the time of the defeat of Beyazit:zit:

The Roman empire:

« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 01:44:52 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Fall of Constantinople left the city permanently crippled. In its wake the various Italian city-states gained trade concessions and outright possession of large chunks of the city which they used to insure Constantinople could not threaten their own growing trade interests by keeping Constantinople hamstrung--up until the time the Turk took everything.

Have you studied this? Professor Madden wouldn't agree with you and he is a specialist on this subject.

Actually yes, I have studied this. And historians are somewhat like the Fathers, you can never take just one as authoritative. katherineofdixie has already shown that plenty of historians do see a relationship between the sack and its aftereffects and the final decline of Constantinople to the point that it could no longer resist the Islamic pressure. I find their arguments more persuasive than Madden's, you don't. Since it's not a faith issue for either of us, not that big a deal.

You seem to be more concerned about something I didn't say or attempt to imply (though I understand why you might assume an Orthodox was implying it). I don't blame the Roman Catholic Church for the sack. There were Roman Catholics involved and those individuals certainly deserve censure; and the entire project of the Crusades, which provided the context in which Sack could occur, was the responsibility of the Papacy, and I consider it a deeply flawed strategy from the start. However, that doesn't make the Pope or the corporate body of the Roman Church responsible for the specific actions of certain of his adherents anymore than the entire Orthodox Church is responsible for some of the less savory actions of some of its members over the centuries. If there's any 'corporate body' to blame for the Sack, it's Venice, who also happened to be the ones to most benefit.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Out of Divine favour. How could the Byzantine empire not take 1258 and the defeat of Bajazet followed by the crumbling of tamerlane's fake empire to rebuild? Not logical.

Could you help me understand your point here? Please elaborate.

Thanks.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Out of Divine favour. How could the Byzantine empire not take 1258 and the defeat of Bajazet followed by the crumbling of tamerlane's fake empire to rebuild? Not logical.

Btw, in 1258, the Empire hadn't even recovered Constantinople yet. Though they did try to get the Mongols: Maria Palaiologina did marry Abaqa Khan after being engaged to his father Hulegu, the Mongol who destroyed Baghdad. Abaqa died, though, and was succeeded by his Muslim sibling Akhmet.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 12:28:30 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually yes, I have studied this. And historians are somewhat like the Fathers, you can never take just one as authoritative. katherineofdixie has already shown that plenty of historians do see a relationship between the sack and its aftereffects and the final decline of Constantinople to the point that it could no longer resist the Islamic pressure. I find their arguments more persuasive than Madden's, you don't. Since it's not a faith issue for either of us, not that big a deal.

Katherineofdixie only offered 'one' individual... where are the rest? Also, what about actual historians and not individuals with a Religious bias?

Quote

You seem to be more concerned about something I didn't say or attempt to imply (though I understand why you might assume an Orthodox was implying it). I don't blame the Roman Catholic Church for the sack. There were Roman Catholics involved and those individuals certainly deserve censure; and the entire project of the Crusades, which provided the context in which Sack could occur, was the responsibility of the Papacy, and I consider it a deeply flawed strategy from the start. However, that doesn't make the Pope or the corporate body of the Roman Church responsible for the specific actions of certain of his adherents anymore than the entire Orthodox Church is responsible for some of the less savory actions of some of its members over the centuries. If there's any 'corporate body' to blame for the Sack, it's Venice, who also happened to be the ones to most benefit.

Pardon me if I assume your implied that. Far too many, Orthodox and Protestant, tie the West together into a tightly knit bow under the control of the Roman See. I see a great deal of political intrigue in much of this and I could post a short wrap up of my views at some point but most seem bent on seeing these and other events as West vs. East, Barbarians vs. Greeks, Catholic vs. Orthodox and I can see the anecdotal connections but once we dig in it all looks to be typical petty intrigues. If the Eastern Emperors would have never sent the Goths of the Balkans to finish Italy off to rule in their own name later implemented the regional Exarch rule and allowed German Generals to rule over the Western Empire, in all likelihood the See of Rome would have not turned to the Franks for protection. I think that Eastern arrogance and disdain for the Germans and the Germans arrogance and disdain for the Greeks helped cement political distrust and antipathy which ended in cultural as well as religious competition. After the Macedonian Dynasty (i.e. 1030 AD ish ?) the Eastern Empire began to choose Emperors who were largely politically 'weak' so that the real powers in Constantinople could maintain the status que. Constantine the 9th comes to mind... as an early example after the passing of Empress Zoey (?).

My main point in all this is to simply heap the fall of Eastern Rome on the West and in particular on the Sack of Constantinople is absurd. Did it help? Of course not but Constantinople was in the cross-hairs of the Muslims for hundreds of years and they had succeeded multiple times since the 630's AD to ravage the Eastern Empire and reduced it to, in effect, a city-state. We all tend to forget it was the East who 'started' the idea of a Christian Holy War with the religiosity surrounding the recovery of the true Cross from the Persians. The Eastern Army marched with Sacred Icons held before the troops all the way into Persia. Before then there was only a modicum of religious 'theme' to the actions of the Empire (East or West) but their war with the Persians, changed all that. After which, the Eastern Empire brutally cracked down on the Monophysites in the Middle-East. One might wonder if such was an impetus for the Monophysites to embrace the Arabs following their expansion in the area after the fall of Peria. Christian lands dropped quickly after that and with Lombards in the West and Slavs in the north the Empire was hard pressed. We just collapsed.

Without the Franks to prop up the West and the Germans, the West would have ended just like the Eastern Empire... under the yoke of Islam.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

The "Cool" Khans like Hulawu were all COE by the way. Genghis was supported by a Christian tribe at first while he was still a slave.

Perhaps but most of the Eastern Empires 'early' dealings with the Mongols required 'huge' sums of gold in payoffs, at least until they finished the Theodosian Walls.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

So we're here talking about the brutality of the West toward that bastion of civilization in Eastern Rome, Constantinople. I asked if anyone actually knew the history of Constantinople and a few of you confirmed that you did. I'm curious if any of you recall the proceeding years leading up to the assault on Constantinople by the Venetians and Normans? Specifically, do you recall the imprisonment of 'every' single Venetian in the Empire but the Emperor Emmanuel... or the Massacre of the Latins in April 1182 AD under Andronikos I Komnenos? How about Emperor Isaac's deal with Saladin to hinder the Latins during the 3rd Crusade? I'm thinking of one Frederick of Germany being delayed by Isaac for the benefit of Saladin against the English and the French? What about the 4000 survivors sold into slavery but the Emperor to Muslim Turks?

The Massacre of the Latins occurred in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1182. It was a large-scale massacre of the "Latin" (Roman Catholic) merchants and their families, who at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.[2]

Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

My guess is you don't spend much time reflecting on such details because it isn't convenient for you to do so. As I've said evils have been done by East and the West but it doesn't seem like the East remember their own misdeeds because they are too eager keeping track of the misdeed done to themselves but history is a two edged sword people.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 06:11:15 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

So we're here talking about the brutality of the West toward that bastion of civilization in Eastern Rome, Constantinople. I asked if anyone actually knew the history of Constantinople and a few of you confirmed that you did. I'm curious if any of you recall the proceeding years leading up to the assault on Constantinople by the Venetians and Normans? Specifically, do you recall the imprisonment of 'every' single Venetian in the Empire but the Emperor Emmanuel... or the Massacre of the Latins in April 1182 AD under Andronikos I Komnenos? How about Emperor Isaac's deal with Saladin to hinder the Latins during the 3rd Crusade? I'm thinking of one Frederick of Germany being delayed by Isaac for the benefit of Saladin against the English and the French? What about the 4000 survivors sold into slavery but the Emperor to Muslim Turks?

The Massacre of the Latins occurred in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1182. It was a large-scale massacre of the "Latin" (Roman Catholic) merchants and their families, who at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.[2]

Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

My guess is you don't spend much time reflecting on such details because it isn't convenient for you to do so. As I've said evils have been done by East and the West but it doesn't seem like the East remember their own misdeeds because they are too eager keeping track of the misdeed done to themselves but history is a two edged sword people.

Then why do you continue to cut yourself on it?

We don't "spend much time reflecting on such detais" here because they have nothing to do with the OP, except further justify dwelling on 1204. As you point out, the Roman Emperors called the West as allies and intermarried with them as "allies." Said "allies" proceeded to further undermine the empire on the frontier with Islam, setting up its own rival Patriarchate in Antioch and Latin state in 1098, and massacring the Muslims with the capture of 1099: the Orthodox having been expelled as the Crusaders approarched, a harbinger of the new relations between the Orthodox and the Muslims, the latter permanently now seeing the former as an innate fifth column. Said "allies," as you point out, proceeded to turn over economic control etc. to the West, a fact even the great unwashed in Constantinople picked up on. But the emperors continued to foolish take enemies as friencs, and the populace continued to rip the fleece off the wolves, which forced them out into the open in 1204. And again, that, not 1453, was the turning point of the Empire.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If we Catholics were so focused on the restoration of Christendom and the defeat of Islam why did the English and French side with the Turks against Russia when they attempted to take back Christian lands from the Sultan at the start of the Crimean War?

Let's not cherry pick through history here, Friend. If we would have aided Russia in this we would all be able to attend the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia right now.

French have always played as the rulers of continental Europe, Remember Lepanto's war when Spain, Pope, Venice and Some Germans went to war to ottomans to stop them to take Venice, France played neutral, when indeed they tryed to help Ottomans to make Spain to weaken its armies in Netherlands and America territories. French have always think in themselves.

The only tiem frenchs appeared to play for a third one was when Russia took Poland and Napoleon went to take them out from those lands. Poland was catolic and Zar didn't respect their independency. That is the only time france has fight from a third in modern times.

If we Catholics were so focused on the restoration of Christendom and the defeat of Islam why did the English and French side with the Turks against Russia when they attempted to take back Christian lands from the Sultan at the start of the Crimean War?

Let's not cherry pick through history here, Friend. If we would have aided Russia in this we would all be able to attend the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia right now.

I also want to point out that Rusia has also been an expansionist Power like USA, even in Christian Countries as Poland, Bohemia, Lituania etc. Infact the ortodoxy was managed by Zar heading a permanent synod without a Patriarch. This relation between Rusian orthodoxy and government resulted in a revolution where orthodox christians didn't deffend orthodoxy that was very linked to power of Zar. from commnism.

In the times when Russian Revolution happened, in México we had our own Revolution, but it happened in 1910, when pour people took arms against capitalists, But this revolution didn't result in a real communist society, and when masson comunists tried to fight church people reacted so violently that government had to go back accepting living with a huge institution linked to Pope in Rome.

At the long of revolutionary governments, catholicism was fight by propagandistic and by lowering rights of clerecy, Many protestants where invited by Massons in government to hit catholicism.

My point is that although Rusia and México had armed revolutions inside and the revolution in Rusia went against orthodoxy and in México revolution went against catholicism, it seams that catholics in méxico where more ferreus to deffend catholicism than orthodox in Rusia to defend orthodoxy, and I think it was due to the fact that Rusian orthodoxy was equated to Zar regime, while Catohlicism was not quite easily linked to dictatorship and capitalists.

Perhaps it would also happened in bizantine empire where a social revolution ocurred along side to invasion, and as Orthodoxy was linked to temporal power, it also suffered the angry of revolts.

...1204. And again, that, not 1453, was the turning point of the Empire.

I agree with both of you. As milestones go, 1204 was at least as significant as 1453 or 1071 (Battle of Manzikert). However, these milestones did not just happen out of the blue; there were many factors. BTW, the problem with us Orthodox being overly sensitive and/or blaming the Romans is that such as stance is counterproductive: the idea of studying history is to learn from it, no?

BTW: I just read Alsonso's latest. I think he is trying to identify broad and frankly simplistic historical themes. OTH, much of the to-and-from between Ignatius and the EO posters has highlighted the complexity of history.

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?

Historically, people from many countries, ethnic groups and religions emigrated to the "New World" of both South and North America for a better life, land of their own, to get away from oppression or famine or other problems, or because other countries were not willing to take them among other reasons.

Russia was a settled country (and recall that there are many countries around Russia and that there were conflicts and wars between the nations). Canada and the US had open lands, and new places where settlements could be established. Some companies, such as railroads, sent representatives to Europe to encourage people to come and settle. In other cases, people with a particular skill were wanted and their passage was paid by potential employers. Some came because of such discoveries as the gold in California.

Opportunities and a chance for some improvement in their lives is a strong reason for coming to the "western hemisphere".

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?

Historically, people from many countries, ethnic groups and religions emigrated to the "New World" of both South and North America for a better life, land of their own, to get away from oppression or famine or other problems, or because other countries were not willing to take them among other reasons.

Russia was a settled country (and recall that there are many countries around Russia and that there were conflicts and wars between the nations). Canada and the US had open lands, and new places where settlements could be established. Some companies, such as railroads, sent representatives to Europe to encourage people to come and settle. In other cases, people with a particular skill were wanted and their passage was paid by potential employers. Some came because of such discoveries as the gold in California.

Opportunities and a chance for some improvement in their lives is a strong reason for coming to the "western hemisphere".

Ebor

Migrational politics in USA are state politics, thus this politic of allowing europeans to come USA was to ensure that new citizens were allied to governmet rather than an ethnical or religious gruop, because, USA knows that if they oppened doors to México, mexicans would go ther not as USA government allies but as recovering land once belonged to México, so no alliance. Though Mexico is rather not to reclame USA lands, mexicans would feel free of allying to masonic government of USA.

Though in USA many hispanics abandon faith to protestantism, it is also true that many hispanics keep their faith and link it to language, so hispanics for many of them means "knowing spanish and being catholic", it is also true that masonic governments don't use to teach history of America since the very begining of colonization. Because they would have to recall the fact that all USA and Canada, were teritories originally belonged to Spain due to Tordesillas teatry, signed by Pope. If catholic hispanics there in USA and Canada were councius of this, they would be more secure and confident of not being alliens but the legitimate owners there in all North America and not only in California, Texas, Arizona, Utha, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, former mexican lands.

So Orthodoxy in Americais is a play of Masonic governments to fight catholicism, rather than an invitation fron catholic church for orthodoxy to stablish in originally catholic lands. Given by God's will to Catholics, and evangelized by catholics in the hand of Spain.

Catolicism is the faith of Americas, not Protestantism, not Islam, not Orthodoxy, not by our own merits but only by God's grace. so all catholics there in USA should feel in their home, not as foreings in an originally protestant land but as the real owners of America, Given by God to us Catholics.

Masonic government? I'm sorry, I thought part of the question was why people the "Old World" came to the "New" instead of, as in the OP, Russia. The US government is not "masonic".

As to the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) why should the authority of the Bishop of Rome to divide the "newly discovered" lands between Spain and Portugal be accepted by other nations? There were human beings already living in those places (which included much of Africa and Asia as well the Americas). Even Portugal didn't abide by the line of demarcation in South America with their control of Brazil, nor did Spain stay away from Japan. So it is not a "fact" that Spain "owned" all of North America but an assertion of ownership that could not be enforced. Instead people from a number of countries established colonies and settlements and over centuries of treaties and wars and the rise and decline of empires, places like the United States and Canada and Mexico became their own nations.

As to the "ownership" of such areas as most of Montana, France "owned" the territory that came to be known as the Louisiana Purchase following the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800) which it then sold to the United States in 1803.

Finally many orthodox went to USA to look for a new land into western emispher, ¿Why didn't they preffered Russia?

Historically, people from many countries, ethnic groups and religions emigrated to the "New World" of both South and North America for a better life, land of their own, to get away from oppression or famine or other problems, or because other countries were not willing to take them among other reasons.

Russia was a settled country (and recall that there are many countries around Russia and that there were conflicts and wars between the nations). Canada and the US had open lands, and new places where settlements could be established. Some companies, such as railroads, sent representatives to Europe to encourage people to come and settle. In other cases, people with a particular skill were wanted and their passage was paid by potential employers. Some came because of such discoveries as the gold in California.

Opportunities and a chance for some improvement in their lives is a strong reason for coming to the "western hemisphere".

Ebor

Migrational politics in USA are state politics, thus this politic of allowing europeans to come USA was to ensure that new citizens were allied to governmet rather than an ethnical or religious gruop, because, USA knows that if they oppened doors to México, mexicans would go ther not as USA government allies but as recovering land once belonged to México, so no alliance. Though Mexico is rather not to reclame USA lands, mexicans would feel free of allying to masonic government of USA.

Though in USA many hispanics abandon faith to protestantism, it is also true that many hispanics keep their faith and link it to language, so hispanics for many of them means "knowing spanish and being catholic", it is also true that masonic governments don't use to teach history of America since the very begining of colonization. Because they would have to recall the fact that all USA and Canada, were teritories originally belonged to Spain due to Tordesillas teatry, signed by Pope. If catholic hispanics there in USA and Canada were councius of this, they would be more secure and confident of not being alliens but the legitimate owners there in all North America and not only in California, Texas, Arizona, Utha, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, former mexican lands.

So Orthodoxy in Americais is a play of Masonic governments to fight catholicism, rather than an invitation fron catholic church for orthodoxy to stablish in originally catholic lands. Given by God's will to Catholics, and evangelized by catholics in the hand of Spain.

Catolicism is the faith of Americas, not Protestantism, not Islam, not Orthodoxy, not by our own merits but only by God's grace. so all catholics there in USA should feel in their home, not as foreings in an originally protestant land but as the real owners of America, Given by God to us Catholics.

So Unam Sanctam is infallible, eh?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Tordesilhas AND that the land belonged to the native population of Mexico and the Americas in general which became Roman Catholic later. God gave the Land. I bet you guys don't know that Spain's biggest "Moorish" City (Cordoba) had keys on it saying "May this City be guarded by Allah and his servants FOREVER", Spain made sure those keys were handed over to them by the Muslims when they took it so as to make the point that God blessed them not the Muslims. So Alonso is right. Protestantism = faith of starch shirt Elizabethan English speaking colonizers.

So we're here talking about the brutality of the West toward that bastion of civilization in Eastern Rome, Constantinople. I asked if anyone actually knew the history of Constantinople and a few of you confirmed that you did. I'm curious if any of you recall the proceeding years leading up to the assault on Constantinople by the Venetians and Normans? Specifically, do you recall the imprisonment of 'every' single Venetian in the Empire but the Emperor Emmanuel... or the Massacre of the Latins in April 1182 AD under Andronikos I Komnenos? How about Emperor Isaac's deal with Saladin to hinder the Latins during the 3rd Crusade? I'm thinking of one Frederick of Germany being delayed by Isaac for the benefit of Saladin against the English and the French? What about the 4000 survivors sold into slavery but the Emperor to Muslim Turks?

The Massacre of the Latins occurred in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1182. It was a large-scale massacre of the "Latin" (Roman Catholic) merchants and their families, who at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.[2]

Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.[1][10] Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins. Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.[11] Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[2] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.[2][12] Ironically, a few years later, Andronikos I himself was deposed and handed over to the mob of Constantinople citizenry, and was tortured and summarily executed in the Hippodrome by Latin soldiers.

My guess is you don't spend much time reflecting on such details because it isn't convenient for you to do so. As I've said evils have been done by East and the West but it doesn't seem like the East remember their own misdeeds because they are too eager keeping track of the misdeed done to themselves but history is a two edged sword people.

Then why do you continue to cut yourself on it?

We don't "spend much time reflecting on such detais" here because they have nothing to do with the OP, except further justify dwelling on 1204. As you point out, the Roman Emperors called the West as allies and intermarried with them as "allies." Said "allies" proceeded to further undermine the empire on the frontier with Islam, setting up its own rival Patriarchate in Antioch and Latin state in 1098, and massacring the Muslims with the capture of 1099: the Orthodox having been expelled as the Crusaders approarched, a harbinger of the new relations between the Orthodox and the Muslims, the latter permanently now seeing the former as an innate fifth column. Said "allies," as you point out, proceeded to turn over economic control etc. to the West, a fact even the great unwashed in Constantinople picked up on. But the emperors continued to foolish take enemies as friencs, and the populace continued to rip the fleece off the wolves, which forced them out into the open in 1204. And again, that, not 1453, was the turning point of the Empire.

The Eastern Emperors asked for aid from Western Christendom and the West gave them her sons but when those sons needed the Eastern Emperor to have their back at the Siege of Antioch, he left them to die without water or aid during a counter-siege by the Turks. But they didn't die and they managed to win against the Turks by leaving the protective walls of the city and meeting them in open combat. They won and they felt no loyalty to the Emperor that left them for dead at the hands of the Turks. So they didn't turn Antioch over to Eastern hands and kept it to rule over it for themselves. You may look at it any way you wish but in those days loyalty between brothers meant something until you failed to live up to your bond. From the eyes of those Western Christians who bled to retake Antioch the Emperor sold them out.

The turning point of the Empire was the end of the Macedonian Dynasty... 1130 AD as there was a revolt just about every single year during the 12 Century. If the Emperor didn't want Westerners within his walls he should have built his own fleet instead hiring Venetians for ships and trading rights. If he didn't want to have revolts and unrest within his kingdom, he shouldn't have hired so many mercenaries to fight for him and fought his own battles as his more noble forefather led in the field of battle before him. No, Friend, the Empire didn't 'turn' on 1204 AD. It was already decadent before then.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”